These patient suits are stupid. Someone has an idea, files a patent but never implements it. This kind of games play will see innovation grind to a halt, and if every idea was shelved waiting for someone to sue for picking it up, the IT world will go into a coma. Interval Research had no idea how to build a commercial product and no intention to build a commercial product. It was simply a vehicle to create paper, unimplementable patents. Those who have the ability to implement it, do, then get sued. If they didn't, then we wouldn't get the benefit of using them. The law should be, you have an idea, patent it with express rules that it needs to be implemented within 5 years of patient. Otherwise innovation will be controlled by lawyers. "The first thing we do, is kill all the lawyers." (Shakespeare's Henry VI)

You hit the nail on the head about one thing in particular. The author of the patents did not know how to market it, and therefor did not make a lot of profit off of it. If the other companies came up with the patented idea on there own, there may be a sore spot in this suit, but if it leaked from the patent-holding company, he definitely has every right to pursue funds coming from those companies. Either way, he was smart to create the patents, and may have been ahead of curve in terms of the standard CEO life as we know it now- build as much power and money in your name as can, and disregard the rest of the company. If he holds the patents, then he KNEW someone could make money off them, and he planned to make money off of them wether he marketed them or not. As someone else stated, he didn't want to stop them from using them, just make money from his endevours and their usage of ideas. If I had an idea and patent, but no knowledge of how to market it, I'd probably do the same thing.

**** Paul Allen. That SOB is a multi-billionaire. This frivolous nonsense just jams up an already overworked and overly litigious civil court system.

Originally Posted by Shishir G

You moron, you can't just say I CREATED SOMETHING ITS MINE, NO ONE CAN STEAL IT!!!!
you have to fill out tons of forms, go to the government, pay them, then it MIGHT be patented, but it can be denied.
MMi LIVES on apple, what the hell is the point of suing them?

Good point. It costs thousands of dollars to file just one patent, and his company has around 300. Add it up. This is one of the most BS cases I've heard in years. Paul Allen, one of the richest men in the world, billionaire many times over, can't figure out how to sell a product so he becomes a patent troll for sh!ts and giggles. F that!

Originally Posted by Tyronal

These patient suits are stupid. Someone has an idea, files a patent but never implements it. This kind of games play will see innovation grind to a halt, and if every idea was shelved waiting for someone to sue for picking it up, the IT world will go into a coma. Interval Research had no idea how to build a commercial product and no intention to build a commercial product. It was simply a vehicle to create paper, unimplementable patents. Those who have the ability to implement it, do, then get sued. If they didn't, then we wouldn't get the benefit of using them. The law should be, you have an idea, patent it with express rules that it needs to be implemented within 5 years of patient. Otherwise innovation will be controlled by lawyers. "The first thing we do, is kill all the lawyers." (Shakespeare's Henry VI)

I mostly agree, except it takes 3-5 years for a patent just to be approved. The five year implementation should be from the date the patent is approved, even if its commercially implemented years prior to approval. There has to be some standard that works.

If I created a cure for cancer,it'd be free....there's no price on life

You must have never heard a man named Nickola Tesla.. He want to give electricity for free to the whole world.... Look him up and see what happens when you wanna help the world and not profit from it!!

Fukk Paul Allen. That SOB is a multi-billionaire. This frivolous nonsense just jams up an already overworked and overly litigious civil court system.

Did you say **** Apple? or **** Jobs when Apple is doing it to everyone else? Where is your SOB is a multi-billionaire when Jobs is doing it? Where is your "frivolous nonsense" when Apple went crazy with lawsuits a few months back?

If you did you would be cheering this guy on because he is giving Apple/Jobs a taste of their own medicine, but if you did not...

I won't quote the entire passage but to the gentleman that responded to my comment. If someone has a great idea and patents it to protect it then can't find either the funding or source the abilities from various persons to implement it, how can you punish them for that? Lets say you had an idea and couldn't come up with the cash to make it happen then some a-hole with a lot of money brings your idea to market as his own and makes money off of it. Whether the invention benefited the public or not doesn't matter. It is that someone had the idea first and protected their idea via a patent. If you want a piece of that pie you license it, pay royalties, buy the patent, buy the exclusive rights to market the product, etc. There are many options. Stealing an idea, playing it off as your own, making money on it, and not giving financial credit to the creator is not one of your options.

Here's to Paul Allen giving Apple the sharp stick in the eye that Apple has been giving people and companies when the same happens to them.

Furthermore, if corporations exist solely to come up with ideas and patent them then make money off those patents then think of it like a patent store where you can shop patents for an invention you want to market. Likewise, anyone else can start doing this as well and it isn't like creating patents solely for monetary gain is harmful because in doing so it brings fresh ideas to light. My idea is patentBay(which I have patented, trademarked, and is protected by copyright) which is an auction site that sells patents.

Did you say **** Apple? or **** Jobs when Apple is doing it to everyone else? Where is your SOB is a multi-billionaire when Jobs is doing it? Where is your "frivolous nonsense" when Apple went crazy with lawsuits a few months back?

If you did you would be cheering this guy on because he is giving Apple/Jobs a taste of their own medicine, but if you did not...

I wonder when Jobs and Apple going to file a counter-suit.

Why is all the vitriol saved just for apple here when most of the top ten IT companies in the world are in the suit too? Oh, microsuck aren't but they breached the same patent law. Sue some but not all. Hypocrisy. Allen's a troll.

Originally Posted by alexevo

I won't quote the entire passage but to the gentleman that responded to my comment. If someone has a great idea and patents it to protect it then can't find either the funding or source the abilities from various persons to implement it, how can you punish them for that? Lets say you had an idea and couldn't come up with the cash to make it happen then some a-hole with a lot of money brings your idea to market as his own and makes money off of it. Whether the invention benefited the public or not doesn't matter. It is that someone had the idea first and protected their idea via a patent. If you want a piece of that pie you license it, pay royalties, buy the patent, buy the exclusive rights to market the product, etc. There are many options. Stealing an idea, playing it off as your own, making money on it, and not giving financial credit to the creator is not one of your options.

Here's to Paul Allen giving Apple the sharp stick in the eye that Apple has been giving people and companies when the same happens to them.

Furthermore, if corporations exist solely to come up with ideas and patent them then make money off those patents then think of it like a patent store where you can shop patents for an invention you want to market. Likewise, anyone else can start doing this as well and it isn't like creating patents solely for monetary gain is harmful because in doing so it brings fresh ideas to light. My idea is patentBay(which I have patented, trademarked, and is protected by copyright) which is an auction site that sells patents.

A good person with an idea and the desire, but no resources to implement it will knock on the door of industry to either sell his idea to those who can make it or hire them to do it, not shelve it just waiting sue. A good, smart man will collaborate with business to bring it to life. This has been going on for over a century. You're probably using the very features this patent is written for, but it is not brought to you by Paul Allen. If Allen believed so much about his idea patented a decade ago, why then hasn't he developed it? He's a friggin billionaire and has the resources. How about the other companies on the suit? You hate them so much too? Tell me why M$ aren't being sued as well? Wake up and smell the lawyer trap.

I know full well why he didn't name Microsoft in his suit. Simply put, Microsoft made him most of his money. Would you sue the company you left after they made you a billionaire? I sure wouldn't!

Look further into it. He is suing for patent infringement. That is part A. Part B is he is only suing companies that have a decent chunk of change with which to pay royalities, pay licensing, or pay settlements. Mozilla, for example, is a mostly non-profit organization and they aren't named in the suit. It would be very bad PR to sue a non-profit organization for something like patent infringement.

The question here really isn't who is he suing. The question is why. He is suing because either he wants to make them pay for infringing and waited a while to see if it would be financially worth suing over or he is suing because he genuinely feels that they should have done their due diligence and contacted him first about how to obtain the patents, rights to the patents, licenses, etc.

Does anyone know for sure if Microsoft didn't issue him a big chunk of stock or some sort of compensation in exchange for the ability to bring the ideas in his patents to market with his permission?

No matter how you slice it, the law is the law and Mr. Allen is in the right. Interval Research did their homework, created the patents, and can do with them as they wish. If you can go and create a product, make money on it, and not pay something to the original creator of the idea then what the F good is a patent but a stupid piece of paper.

Just because he is suing doesn't mean any one of those companies can't simply strike a deal for royalties, licensing, etc. and have themselves removed from the lawsuit. Likewise, Mr. Allen can still add more companies to the lawsuit so nobody is really sure 100% that Microsoft won't be sued as well.